> They tend to trust what the 'experts' tell them, as in
> >many other fields. The question is, why haven't the experts passed this
> >on? I guess the matter of genealogies doesn't arise too often in Sunday
> >sermons, but there must be people who ask questions... Or maybe people
> >don't read their bibles enough (or not critically enough) to realise
> >that there are such questions that should be raised. I don't know.
>
> What I find strange in the above is the assertion that they believe the
> experts. Christians in the pews do have a tendency to believe theological
> experts
That's what I meant in this case.
but almost never (at least in the conservative branch of
> Christianity) do they believe the experts in geology, biology, astronomy
> etc. On matters of science, they believe the theologians!
Yes - unless they have a particular interest in science themselves, I'd
say you are absolutely right. And the result depends on which 'theological
experts' they believe - or which they are exposed to. The speaker which
my church invited in to speak on this subject was actually very good,
but many of course are not.
>
> >
[..]
> First off, the above was not refering to the Genesis patriarchs alone.
> There is still a problem between Abe and David, given the life expectency
> during that period of time. Early agriculture actually shortened human
> life, it was no benefit to health. It made for a people capable of
> producing lots of children in a very short life.
>
> But since you ask about the ancient patriarch, I sometimes wonder if there
> isn't a change to a lunar year somewhere back there. I haven't been able
> to find the reference but I recall reading about the Egyptians using the
> month and calling it a year. If this were the case, it would give a
> different perspective on some of the earliest ages.
This is very interesting, I hadn't heard of that before; but it would
introduce problems of its own. Consider Genesis 5:15-16 for an extreme
example:
When Mahalalel (I think that's the right number of "l's"!) had lived 65
years he became the father of Jared. And after he became the father of
Jared, Mahalalel lived 830 years. Altogether Mahalalel lived 895 years
and then he died.
If the years are actually lunar months, this would mean that M.. became
a father at the age of about 5, which takes a bit of believing, even
allowing for the possibility that they reached maturity younger in those
days :-)
However, in principle,
> I have no problem with believing that they are actual years, if one pushes
> them far enough back in time because there is no skeletal evidence I am
> aware of for 400 year old people, much less 800.
>
> >
> >>
> >> [according to skeletal evidence most people died before they were 40 in
> >> that time period--grm]
> >
> >Is it possible that if these people really were living longer lives that
> >they were aging more slowly, and this could be reflected in the skeletal
> >remains? Just a thought - not intrinsically or logistically impossible,
> >I would guess, but obviously with no real evidence to back it up.
> >
> >>
> >> There are only 10 names between Abraham and Noah. Since you believe that
> >> this represents 1200 years, that is an average generation time of 120
> >> years. Are you willing to say here and now that post flood Sumerians lived
> >> lives of several hundred years and that their first born were born on
> >> average when the old geezers were 120 years of age?
I'm not actually asserting anything. But there seems to be two options
here. We can take the ages at face value, or we can assume that they
are not literal - in which case, what are we to make of them? And if
they are not literal, is it still necessary to insist that other aspects
of the stories must be? How do we choose between what is literal and what
isn't?
> >>
> >
> >Again, the pre-Abrahamic figures are reported to have lived much longer
> lives.
> >Maybe there is a good explanation that it is some kind of literary
> >technique or something, but the natural reading of the text is to take it
> >at face value. Or do we say that the names of the people are real, but the
> >ages are not?
> >
> >> Assuming that people in the 1200 years between David and Abraham had the
> >> same generation time as between David and Jesus, then the Luke Genealogy
> >> represents 1/3 of the people who should be there. Between Abraham and
> >> Noah, 1/5 of the necessary people. When you consider that people married
> >> and had children younger these figures for the missing people should be
> >> considered conservative.
> >>
> >> That people are missing from the genealogies is no big surprise. The
> >> question is how many people? Can you cite a verse that says no
> >> geneological gap shall hold more than 5 people? The issue is not when the
> >> people lived or how old they are. The issue is whether or not they were
> >> real people.
> >> <<<
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >> Obviously our faith (and my faith) is in Jesus Christ. But I often ask
> >> >> myself and others "Would you believe Jesus is the Messiah if there
> were no
> >> >> evidence of Egyptians, Hittites, Babylonians, Samaritans, Israel, Judah
> >> >> etc. Would you believe that Jesus is the son of God if there were no
> >> >> evidence of a Roman empire, no evidence that man had ships 2000 years
> ago
> >> >> upon which Paul could travel?"
> >> >>
> >> >> I would contend that you would dismiss the Scripture as a collection of
> >> >> fairy tales in the same manner we reject the Book of Mormon. It doesn't
> >> >> match the unique history of the world.
> >> >
> >> >You would be right - but of course we *do* have such supporting evidence!
> >>
> >> but as you mentioned earlier, we have evidence gets scarcer the further we
> >> go back. And both liberal and conservative have offered flood scenarios
> >> (global vs mesopotamian floods) which can't be true in our universe. Yet
> >> these scenarios are offered as if they solve the problem.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Now if you would reject
> >> >> Christianity in the above situation, at what point does Christianity
> become
> >> >> acceptable? How much false history can be taught and still have a
> viable
> >> >> religion?
> >> >
> >> >It wouldn't necessarily have to be taught as false history if it is
> >> >in fact allegorical. Personally I hope it is not, but if it could be
> >> >proved that it must be, then I would have to revise my thinking
> >> >somewhat - but I have to do that quite often anyway :-) but I don't
> >> >think in this case it would necessarily be fatal to Christianity.
> >>
> >> It has always seemed strange to me that everyone wants early Genesis
> >> allegorical except the parts that they don't want allegorical.
I would much rather that none of it is allegorical - though I believe
that symbolism has been used to describe some of the events; but they
must still have been real events.
> > Genesis 1
> >> is often hit hard as being poetry or what ever but that it doesn't
> >> represent the real state of affairs.
Agreed. a few verses do perhaps fall into the category of poetry -
where God created man in his own image - but on the whole it certainly
isn't.
Yet then they turn around and say that
> >> Genesis 1:1 is actual history!!!
> >
> >Genesis 1 cannot IMO be history as we define it today. The idea of the
> >firmament at least must be figurative. But this doesn't mean that it
> >doesn't describe real events. It gives not so much a description of
> >how the Universe came to be how it is, as a revelation of the one who
> >created it, and that it was created for him and for his pleasure.
> >
Gary